Jesus' house discovered

Or perhaps that should be re-discovered, but anyway archaeologists have been excavating at the supposed site.

Archaeologists working in Nazareth — Jesus' hometown — in modern-day Israel have identified a house dating to the first century that was regarded as the place where Jesus was brought up by Mary and Joseph.

Dr Dark, a specialist in first century and Christian archaeology, argues that the house he believes was Jesus’s boyhood home matches Adomnan’s account. It is located beneath the Sisters of Nazareth Convent, which is across the road from Church of Annunciation in Nazareth.

The house is partly made of mortar-and-stone walls, and was cut into a rocky hillside. It was first uncovered in the 1880s, by nuns at the Sisters of Nazareth convent, but it wasn't until 2006 that archaeologists led by Ken Dark, a professor at the University of Reading in the United Kingdom, dated the house to the first century, and identified it as the place where people, who lived centuries after Jesus' time, believed Jesus was brought up.

Formerly as mentioned there was the Church of the Nutrition over the site from the Byzantine period, which was an unusual name for a church.

Jesus is believed to have grown up in Nazareth. Archaeologists found that, centuries after Jesus' time, the Byzantine Empire (which controlled Nazareth up until the seventh century) decorated the house with mosaics and constructed a church known as the "Church of the Nutrition" over the house, protecting it.

Crusaders who ventured into the Holy Land in the 12th century fixed up the church after it fell into disrepair. This evidence suggests that both the Byzantines and Crusaders believed that this was the home where Jesus was brought up, Dark said.

The artifacts found in the first-century house include broken cooking pots, a spindle whorl (used in spinning thread) and limestone vessels, suggesting possibly a family lived there, the archaeologists said. The limestone vessels suggest a Jewish family lived in the house, because Jewish beliefs held that limestone could not become impure. If a Jewish family lived here it would support the idea that this could have been Jesus' house.

Not only the house of Joseph is considered to be known but also that were Mary lived and the Annunciation said to have taken place, so seemingly it's all there...

The Adomnan text describes two churches in Nazareth, one of which was the Church of Annunciation. Dr Dark writes: ‘The other stood nearby and was built near a vault that also contained a spring and the remains of two tombs.’

The Sisters of Nazareth Convent matches this because there is evidence of a large Byzantine church with a spring and two tombs in its crypt, he says.

Dr Dark writes: ‘Great efforts had been made to encompass the remains of this building. Both the tombs and the house were decorated with mosaics in the Byzantine period, suggesting that they were of special importance, and possibly venerated.

It's interesting that there were cults of the Holy House in the Catholic church, were the house was somehow considered to be mysteriously transported from Nazareth to places such as Loreto in Italy, these were reproductions as it were of the original so i wonder how much they conform to the actual.

I've been several times on Pilgrimage when young to the Holy House cult site in England at Walsingham which was was founded in the time of Edward the Confessor about 1053 as a replica of the House of the Annunciation and known as England's Nazareth.

From the account of the pilgrim Arculfo (670 ), we know that at Nazareth "two large churches were built: one in the middle of the city, founded over two arches, the place where the house in which our Savior grew up was built and the other on the site off the house where the angel Gabriel came to Blessed Mary and, finding her alone, spoke to her." In the 17th century, Father Francesco Quaresmi describes a place "that the locals call Joseph’s House and Workshop where, for a time, there was a beautiful church dedicated to Saint Joseph." The apocryphal "Story of Joseph the Carpenter" narrates the death and interment of Jesus’ foster father, describing how Jesus himself helped and comforted him at the moment that he passed out of this life.

We also know that some of Jesus’ relatives remained at Nazareth, according to the history of the Judaeo-Christian Hegesippus (II cent. AD), reported in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius of Caeserea: "Of the Lord’s family, there remain the nephews of Judah, the brother according to the flesh, who were denounced as belonging to the lineage of David. It can be supposed that these "relatives of the Lord" played a not inconsiderable part in the conservation of the Christian memory of Nazareth.

Jesus house possibly found

Jesus house photo's

Nazareth Saint Joseph

a reply to: Kantzveldt

This is great evidence that Jesus is real. Did they find any ancient writings in the house or area?

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: Kantzveldt

This is great evidence that Jesus is real. Did they find any ancient writings in the house or area?

What evidence? An old hose in a village from back then that might have been his. You are assuming him first and attributing the house to him.

a reply to: arpgme

Yes it shouldn't be surprising that the house was remembered and celebrated as his birth place, in the early centuries the locals would have surely been well aware of which house he'd lived in, no writings discovered in the house though, Churches were built over the site to protect the houses though.






Jesus childhood home discovered


a reply to: roth1

No not really there was the recorded tradition, like i said if a very famous person comes from a village everyone is going to remember which house he lived in for centuries, so i think it quite likely the early church identified the correct location, it's not just a random house that's been excavated but the traditional site.

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: Kantzveldt

This is great evidence that Jesus is real.

I don't disagree that Jesus existed, however I do dispute that he was the "Son of God".

I believe he was nothing more than a man who said a few smart things and gained a following.

Interesting development...

Curious to see if anything ground breaking is found or if that was all looted years ago.

a reply to: Irishhaf

I hope they don't find a local latrine or knowing archaeologists they'll be telling us what Jesus had for breakfast...

I think it is fantastic that they have a home from the period and area that was revered as the house of Jesus. There wasn't record keeping or documentation of any sorts for the skeptics of today to chomp at, but with handed down stories and recollections from the past, we can assume this place was very special to alot of people.

You don't just build a church on top if any old house! Of course there will be people that don't believe or don't even want to believe that He resided there, and they may need concrete proof. Not everyone needs proof to believe in Him or what He was.

Either way, excellent find!

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: Kantzveldt

This is great evidence that Jesus is real.

I don't disagree that Jesus existed, however I do dispute that he was the "Son of God".

I believe he was nothing more than a man who said a few smart things and gained a following.

And that nobody said anything about until several hundred years after he died. Sure he was real!

Jesus was an amazing man for his time. Amazing that people base their entire life and "after life" on human remembrance of the teachings and loosely accurate scriptures of a cave dweller or cave man. Shows how well Jesus understood human psychology.

Jesus lived in the equivalent of a cave.

Here we go again.
More half proofs for the followers of Jesus to distort.

Isnt funny how the followers of this mumbo jumbo Ignore the fact that Jesus wasnt of the royal line of david ?
Joseph was of the royal line , Mary wasn't .
If Jesus was concieved by the holy spirit giving Mary a good seeing to , then there is no royal blood line.
So the so called scriptures have not been fulfilled.

Kantzveldt,

Antecedent to the discovery of the site in modern times, is there any documentary or archaeological evidence linking the site with Jesus to ? It is my understanding that the modern settlement of Nazareth dates from after the time of Christ.

a reply to: Kantzveldt

How did people a few hundred years removed from Jesus learn that this was Jesus' house and what makes their source trustworthy to repeat as true?

originally posted by: havok

You don't just build a church on top if any old house!

You would if you are a poor town looking to increase pilgrim traffic and boost your local economy. Holy forgeries were pretty common in those times.

Here's my theory.
The people of the village needed a place to pray so they used a vacant cave rather than being bothered to build a place.

Makes more sense than saying its the birthplace of the son of a mythical god.

originally posted by: Kantzveldt
a reply to: Irishhaf

I hope they don't find a local latrine or knowing archaeologists they'll be telling us what Jesus had for breakfast...

Could lead to dna, though...that could be fun!

Actually this isn't that rare, a lot of early (1st c. through 3rd c.) Christian "churches" were inside homes or in caves (or even caves dug out beneath homes), hidden from both Jews and Romans alike. Eventually as Christianity became more mainstream, these hidden churches could move out of such homes and caves, often the congregations would build a proper church directly over the location of their hidden church. I would hazard a guess this home was an early 'hidden' church, that eventually had a proper church built directly over it.

I noted in the article that no archeological evidence makes any connection to any historical person (real or fictional), so the headline appears to be hype.

originally posted by: roth1

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: Kantzveldt

This is great evidence that Jesus is real. Did they find any ancient writings in the house or area?

What evidence? An old hose in a village from back then that might have been his. You are assuming him first and attributing the house to him.

This. It's just an old house in a village from around the time Jesus allegedly lived. There is no evidence of any sort that he actually lived there.

a reply to: Gideon70

Here is a thought, it's called courtesy maybe you should try It.

a reply to: Kantzveldt

I was going to post this yesterday (although probably not as thoroughly as you did), but I did a search and saw that someone had posted something about it back in November, although their post was basically a rant dedicated to discussing the "fact" that Nazareth wasn't even a real place back in the time of Jesus.

Yours is much more on point.